Judge Makes Wrong Ruling on Spector Trial Evidence

The judge in the Phil Spector retrial has made a mistake that could jeopardize the outcome. In response to pretrial motions, Judge Larry Fidler has permitted the use at trial of an inflammatory statement made by Spector years before the murder of Lana Clarkson.

Judge Fidler has ruled that a police witness can testify at the re-trial about a derogatory statement made by Spector regarding women in general. The question now becomes, even though prosecutors won the right to use the evidence, should they?

Spector’s defense reportedly argued that the statement should be prevented from use at trial because it is prejudicial. However, most evidence used by prosecutors at trial is prejudicial to the defendant. This ruling really raises another issue.

The fact that the statement may be prejudicial seems to be the only reason why a prosecutor would want to use this piece of evidence. The problem with introducing evidence of this nature is that it is designed to put the defendant in a bad light, however it does not tend to prove whether Spector committed the crime that is being tried.

Just because someone may have said something mean or thoughtless in the past does not tend to prove that they committed a crime years later. Imagine if, at every trial, the prosecution could present evidence of every other bad thing the defendant did during his life. That tactic may convince a jury that a defendant is a bad guy. However, evidence of that nature is usually excluded. Evidence that is prejudicial is usually only admitted if it can prove a relevant issue in the case.

The point of a criminal prosecution should not be merely to win the case. Prosecutors should be held to a higher standard than attorneys in civil cases. Prosecutors are the representatives of the people and their focus should be on the truth. Ideally, personal vendettas should have no role in a criminal prosecution. Likewise, nor should a win-at-all-cost mentality.

The prosecution may want to reconsider whether it is proper to actually introduce this evidence in this trial. Even though the prosecution has won the right to introduce the evidence, they may want to take a step back and consider what they are planning to do. Do we -- the people -- really want prosecutors to obtain convictions by cutting corners or taking advantage of mistakes? Even when the mistake is in a ruling made by the judge? I hope not.